Patna High Court
Binay Das @ Vinay DasversusThe State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The Court held that the prison superintendent must forward the premature release proposal to the State Remission Board within a month and the Board must adjudicate the proposal within three months.
Summary
The petitioner, convicted of murder and serving a life sentence since 2007, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the prison superintendent to forward a proposal for his premature release to the State Remission Board and another mandamus directing the Board to consider his release after he had completed 17 years of incarceration. The State argued that an earlier proposal had been rejected and could be reconsidered after a year, while the petitioner contended that the rejection was arbitrary and cited precedent. The Court observed that more than two years had elapsed since the last consideration and, relying on Supreme Court guidelines, ordered the authorities to send the proposal within a month and the Board to decide within three months. The petition was consequently disposed with these directions. The decision underscores the duty of prison officials to follow prescribed remission procedures and the applicability of Supreme Court jurisprudence on premature release.
Issues considered
- Whether the prison superintendent is obligated to forward a proposal for premature release to the State Remission Board.
- Whether the State Remission Board must consider the petitioner's premature release after the lapse of the prescribed period.
- Whether the earlier rejection of the proposal was arbitrary and violative of established guidelines.
Subjects
- premature release
- remission board
- mandamus
- life imprisonment
- prison law
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.136 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-260 Year-2007 Thana- NATHNAGAR District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Binay Das @ Vinay Das S/o- Late Lakhan Das Village- Po- Bhatoriya Ps-
Madhusudanpur Dist- Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna Bihar
2. The State Sentence Remission Board through the Principal Secretary, Home
Dept. Govt. of Bihar, Patn Bihar
3. The Joint Secretary-cum Director (Administration) Home Dept. Prison,
Bihar, Patna Bihar
4. The Secretary, Law Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna Bihar
5. The Additional Director General of Police, Patna Bihar
6. The Inspector General, Jail and Reforms Services, Bihar, Patna Bihar
7. The Assistant Inspector General, Jail and Reforms Services, Bihar, Patna
Bihar
8. The Superintendent, Special Central Jail, Bhagalpur Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vijay Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : A.G.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 19-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well
learned counsel for the State/respondents.
02. The present petition has been filed seeking the
following reliefs:-
(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the
nature of MANDAMUS, commanding and
directing the Respondent no.8 to send the
proposal along with relevant reports of the
prescribed Authorities as required under the
law to the State Remission Board for grant of
pre-mature release of the petitioner in
connection with Sessions Trial No.585 of 2008
arising out of Nath Nagar P.S. Case No.260 of
2007 dated 31.10.2007 in which the petitioner
was convicted for life under Section 302/34 of
the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated
04.05.2011 and order on the point of sentence
dated 07.05.2011 passed by the learned
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.136 of 2025(3) dt.19-01-2026
2/3
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court
-1, Bhagalpur
(II) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the
nature of MANDAMUS, commanding and
directing the Respondent State Remission
Board to consider the case of the petitioner
for grant of pre-mature release and grant pre-
mature release to the petitioner on the ground
that the petitioner is behind the bar since
02.11.2007 and he had already completed 17
years of his physical incarceration.
(III) For issuance of any other appropriate
writ / writs, order/ orders direction/directions
for which the writ petitioner would be entitled
under the facts and circumstances of the case.
03. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State/respondents at the outset submits that the proposal for
premature release of the petitioner was earlier rejected by the
State Remission Board (hereinafter ‘the Board’) vide order
dated 20.04.2023 and following the rules for premature release,
the case of the petitioner could be considered after one year of
the rejection and therefore the Board would consider the case of
the petitioner for premature release if proposal is placed before
it.
04. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the rejection on the previous occasion
was merely on the ground that there was adverse report of
superintendent of police and the court which convicted the
petitioner but the grounds taken therein were not supported with
any reasons and merely in order to deny the petitioner’s
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.136 of 2025(3) dt.19-01-2026
3/3
premature release, such reports were given. In support of his
case, learned counsel referred to a decision of this Court passed
in the case of Gokul Yadav vs. State of Bihar and Ors., 2025
(4) PJLR 474.
05. Be that as it may, since more than two years have
elapsed when the proposal for premature release was considered
by the Board, the State authorities are bound to send a proposal
for premature release of the petitioner to the Board which would
then be considered by it in terms of parameters and guidelines
prescribed by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
cases of Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar
& Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1068 & Ram Chander vs. The
State of Chhattisgarh & Anr, (2022) 12 SCC 52. Such proposal
would be sent within a month from the date of the
receipt/production of copy of the present order and thereafter the
Board will consider the proposal and pass orders within a period
of three months.
06. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed
of.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
U T
Checking your session…